Diaries

This is going to be quick, because I really don't see the need to rehash a disheartening game. So I'm digging into the writer's bag of cliche tricks and doing a "theme" diary.

Worst: 10

Michigan hasn't started the same QB in consecutive games since weeks 10 and 11, with Brandon Peters getting the nod against Maryland and Wisconsin. Already down Wilton Speight, Michigan was forced to start O'Korn against OSU due to Peters's injury against the Badgers, and then went back to Peters here. There has been a lot of 1's and 0's shed about why Michigan's offense has looked...butt this year, but "playing 3 QBs, 1.5 of which would be considered functional at best" is pretty high up there.

Best/Worst: 9

#9 Mike McCray, playing in his last game as a Wolverine, picked up 9 tackles in this game, including a team-leading 4 TFLs. People will harp on him in coverage against terrifying players like Barkley and Cook, but he's been a stalwart for a defense that only had 2 returning starters coming into the year. There are absolutely bodies on the roster who can step in to fill his shoes, but that's going to be a bigger task than some people expect.

Michigan entered halftime up only 9-3 despite two SC turnovers due to, you guessed it, inconsistent offensive production. I don't know the actual hierarchy of playcalling on this team; you hear that it's some combination of Drevno and Hamilton that funnels down to Harbaugh, but functionally I don't know if that's the case on every down. But there were multiple times in this game where Michigan's offense could have, should have been able to move the ball downfield on a very aggressive SC defense. I'll accept (to an extent) that they might not be able to run the ball against a top-25 rush defense, but Michigan had 9 3/4-and-outs in this game, and a lot of them occurred from drives where Michigan showed virtually no offensive creativity. For the game, Michigan ran 33 times for 74 yards and threw the ball 44(!) times. And this wasn't necessarily all when Michigan was trailing; Peters was at 23 attempts in the first half. Peters hadn't thrown the ball more than 18 times in a game all year.

Best/Worst: 7

#7 Khaleke Hudson led the team with 10 tackles, including a sack for 7 yards and 2 pass breakups. In a story we've all seen far too often this year, the defense gave up the ghost a bit in that second half as the offense imploded, but Hudson continued his strong play to end the year. He's going to be a key part of the defense next year, and I wouldn't be surprised if he had an all-conference type year as he gets even more experience in this defense and his role expands.

A season-long trend for Michigan's woeful offense has been their 3rd-down yards to go. In this game, Michigan faced, on average, 3rd-and-7 on 21 plays. The national average is around 5 yards to go, and Michigan has consistently been above that against semi-competent defenses. There are myraid of reasons why that occurred: poor run-blocking on earlier downs, predictable playcalling, turnover at QB leading to poor decision-making, etc. But no offense does well when the defense sorta knows what you're going to do, and Michigan's 2-for-17 on 3rd downs this day is the distillation of this issue writ large.

Worst: 6

Brad Robbins punted 6 times in this game...and averaged 34.8 yards per kick. The national average is about 41 yards per kick. So even an average punting performance in this game nets Michigan an average of 6 yards more per kick. Coupled with DPJ's continued struggles fielding punts (he fumbled one that set up a late SC score, and had a couple other instances where he made poor plays on the ball), and I hope people retroactively appreciate even more Michigan's special teams play from last year. Peppers saved hundreds of yards last year with his ball-handling on ST, and Kenny Allen's 43.3 average was extremely useful in flipping field position. Early in this game, Michigan traded punts with SC and wound up 15-ish yards back. Bad offenses need breaks generated by other facets of the team, and outside of one muffed punt return by SC Michigan lost the field position battle pretty handily.

I do want to hone in on the most inexplicable turnover of this game, stemming from the most inexplicable playcall of the year. For reasons that I will never understand and I don't care how hard people try to explain it, Michigan ran what I can only assume was a modified FB dive with noted not-fullback Sean McKeon on 3rd-and-short inside their own 20 yard line. Because this is a play McKeon probably has never practiced doing expect for 2 days before this game, him and Peters messed up the handoff, SC recovered, and the rout was basically on from that point. Michigan has FBs; they have handfuls of them, perhaps even a surplus, even though apparently Hill was out for this game. They have RBs who conceivably can fling their bodies at the line for 1 yard with more consistency than a 6-5 TE. Even if that was the wrong formation or the wrong personnel, nobody on that sideline or the huddle looked at the play configuration and called a timeout, audibled to a different play, set himself on fire so as to distract the referees and players and halt the game, anything. That wasn't bad luck as much as karma punishing Michigan for hubris, and they deserved it.

Worst: 5

Michigan had 5 second-half turnovers against SC, which resulted in 10 SC points. They also had 5 TOs in their loss against MSU earlier in the year. In both those games, Michigan probably wins if they turn the ball over even 3 times. Yes, South Carolina had a bit of bad luck in the first half as well, but overall they've been reasonably lucky all year with a TO margin of +0.75 and an even better adjusted TO mark. Michigan has, well, not been so lucky, with one of the worst TO margins in the nation and even worse luck than you'd expect. One of the reasons I'm cautiously optimistic about next season is this TO margin being pretty bad; more consistency at QB and maturation in the receiving group should cut down on the interceptions, and things like fumbles are sufficiently wacky that Michigan losing 10 a year after losing 5 all of 2016 and 6 in 2015 feels a bit extreme and might be due for a correction next year. Of course, there remain issues of ball security across the team, so perhaps that's being a bit optimistic. Still, turning the ball too many times in a winnable game has become a bit of a theme for the Wolverines of the years, and it's cost them a number of wins in the process.

Best: 4

After some mid-season struggles, Quinn Nordin ended the year a perfect 4/4 in FG attempts in this game and was basically the offense for long stretches. He's probably not the kicking god we all sorta assumed he was after nailing multiple 50+ yarders to star the year, and I'm not sure how beneficial it is to have a kicker grabbing his nuts and directing it toward the SC sidelines after a conversion, but he's still a weapon and one you hope continues to improve over the next couple of years. Heck, maybe he can double-dip as a punter as well.

Worst: 3

Michigan ended the year losers of 3 straight. True, 2 of those losses came against top-5 teams in closer-than-the-final-score contests, but at some point you are your record and 8-5 with one win against a .500+ team is pretty damning. This is year 3 for Harbaugh but, due to lagging recruiting misses by Hoke, this is the year Michigan was going to experience a lot of depth and talent issues if they didn't get a heaping helping of luck at spots like QB, offensive tackles, and WR. With few exceptions, Michigan didn't catch those breaks, and that's why they had yet another different starting 5 on the offensive line trying to block for their 3rd-string QB. Help is on the way, I guess, with the addition of Shea Patterson and maybe a couple of last-second recruiting pulls, but with JBB possibly playing his last game as a Wolverine and assorted other question marks on the offensive line, I fear 2018 will be another year where Michigan looks great at most position groups and still gives a game or two away because they can't block a team to save their lives.

Worst: 2

For the game, Michigan averaged 2.2 ypc. That is the 5th time this year Michigan failed to break 3 ypc. Michigan hasn't had a 1,000 yard rusher not named Denard since 2011; Rutgers has accomplished it more recently than that. The only team I've seen to have more futility running the ball than Michigan over the years has been Illinois. I know the college game has evolved, and Michigan has been effective at distributing carries across different backs, and Higdon was close to 1,000 yards and both him and Evans return next year, and it's a top-10 rushing attack per S&P+, and blah blah blah. But Harbaugh's best teams have always had a dominant ball carrier who grinds opposing defenses down. I'm not calling for 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust or anything, but it doesn't seem like Higdon nor Evans can be that type of every-down back against the better teams Michigan will face, and until they find someone who can fit that role they're going to be succeptible to getting shut down on the ground. You watch teams like Wisconsin and what they do is just hit you with the same guy 25+ times a game, and at some point you start making mistakes and they punish you. Michigan has struggled all year to get into that type of rhythm offensively, and it's cost them in games like this one. I don't even care about 1k as a number as much as what it would mean for an offense to have a workhorse back who will be there, consistently getting yards and keeping Michigan in manageable downs and distances. Setting downs on fire for 2 yards certainly isn't working.

Best: 1

Mo Hurst played his last game at Michigan and, at least per the stat sheet, had a quiet game, recording 1 tackle, 1 QB hurry, and 1 pass breakup. But he was the heart and soul of this defense this year, an All-American to basically anyone who mattered, and one of the more fun players to watch all year. He's going to be a first-round pick in a couple of months, and wherever he winds up he'll make that defensive line instantly better. Michigan will have a lot of pieces returning next year, but his absence will be immensely felt.

Worst/Best: 0

No more Michigan football until September. That also likely means, barring another crazy run in the NCAA tourney by the cagers, no more Best and Worst columns until Notre Dame. It's a downer because I like to write these, but as a trade-off I'll have some free hours every weekend to, I don't know, pay attention to my kids or whatever humans do when college football isn't on. So thank you all for bearing with me this year, and see you in the fall.

Advanced Stats Matchup Analysis - Michigan vs. S. Carolina

Introduction

As usual, this matchup analysis draws upon the Advanced Stats Profiles published weekly by Bill Connelly on Football Study Hall. The profiles feature Connelly’s well-known Five Factors, and also include the more detailed groups of S&P+ metrics that break down elements of the game such as Rushing and Passing, as well as the down-and-distance scenarios known as Standard Downs and Passing Downs. This new interpretation is an updated take on what you may recall from last season. It assesses the complete set of 26 advanced stats metrics using an approach that displays the matchups graphically, in a way that more clearly distinguishes and gauges the significance of any net advantages. For more details regarding the definition of and concepts behind each of the metrics, the Advanced Stats Glossary is a handy reference to bookmark.

Methodology

If you’re interested in the approach to analyzing Bill Connelly’s base metrics, the formulation for deriving the matchup metrics or the data visualization concept for the charts, you can read more in the Michigan at Indiana diary. Nonetheless, nothing here is etched in stone, and certainly suggestions for improving any of the aspects of the methodology are welcome and appreciated!

So with that, on with the matchup analysis.

Executive Summary

The S&P+ margin stands at 8.3 points in favor of the Wolverines. Of the first four of the Five Factors matchups, which are the ones that contribute most significantly to the margin prediction, Michigan shows an advantage in three, with Turnover Margin being close to a push.

The Five Factors Matchups

Here you have the matchups for the core Five Factors metrics for the New Year's Day tussle with the Gamecocks from yonder South Cackalacky. As of the beginning of this week, the S&P+ margin stands at 8.3 points in favor of the Wolverines. Of the first four metrics, which are the ones that contribute most significantly to the margin prediction, Michigan shows an advantage in three - including the factor that is weighted most heavily: Efficiency. The Gamecocks biggest edge is in Explosiveness IsoPPP). The fifth metric, Turnover Margin, is close to a push.

Some notable characteristics in this grouping include:

Michigan closes the regular season with the #1 Defense in Efficiency, going against the slightly above average Cackalacky Offense. Michigan’s Offense is well below average, so it helps Michigan that the Cackalacky Defense is slightly below average.

The Gamecocks’ edge in Explosiveness is almost entirely attributable to the Michigan Defense, which has been notoriously bad in the way of giving up explosive plays this season. Just think back to the one pass completed by Air Force as an exemplar of the potential downside of having a front seven with a highly aggressive disposition. Not that the Cackalacky Offense is very explosive, but the UM Defense is likely to offer up ample opportunities for the Gamecocks to shine in this regard.

Michigan’s advantage in Field Position is largely attributable to the Cackalacky Offense, which is below average. Both Michigan units are well above average, as is the Cackalacky Defense.

As for Finishing Drives, despite its above average offensive unit, the well below average Cackalacky Offense factors significantly in tilting this metric to Michigan.

in Turnover Margin, the Gamecocks are even more effective in generating turnover opportunities than Michigan. What’s more, the Gamecocks have benefitted from an ever greater number of actual turnovers to the tune of about one point per game. Conversely, Michigan has suffered through a dearth of realized turnovers over the course of the regular season, to the tune of about 3.4 points per game.

Rushing Matchups

In going up against South Cackalacky, Michigan nearly manages a clean sweep in the Rushing metrics. While UM exhibits considerable advantages is most categories including the overall metric, USC’s only net advantage comes in Explosiveness, while achieving a push in Opportunity Rate.

Notable characteristics in this group include:

UM is top ten in both the offensive and defensive overall Rushing S&P+ metrics, while USC is #67 and #24, yielding a significant advantage for UM in Rushing S&P+.

The UM Offense is also top ten in in Adj. Line Yards and Power Success Rate, once again affirming that while this OL can’t seem to protect its Quarterbacks, it can still reliably execute gap blocking schemes to move ball carriers down field.

The UM Defense is elite in Adj. Line Yards, Power Success Rate and Stuff Rate, all of which contribute to significant advantages for UM in these metrics.

Cackalacky’s only advantage, in Explosiveness, is due to the typically low rating of the UM Defense (#121) in this category.

Passing Matchups

Once again, Michigan nearly manages a clean sweep of the Gamecocks, this time in the Passing metrics. While the Wolverines exhibits considerable advantages is most categories including the overall metric, the ‘Cocks only net advantage is in, of course, Explosiveness.

The season-long atrophy of the Michigan passing attack, as well as its pass protection, are not so readily apparent, largely because of gross mismatch between the USC Offense and the UM Defense.

Notable characteristics from this group include:

The Michigan Defense is elite in the overall Passing S&P+, Passing Success Rate as well as Adjusted Sack Rate.

The USC Defense is top ten-ish in only Explosiveness, which is not saying much since this metric is derivative of Passing Success, in which the ‘Cocks are well below average. In a sense, the USC pass defense is the opposite of UM’s: opponents have great success throwing against them, but big plays are limited.

Standard Down Matchups

Here again, Michigan captures all but one of the Standard Down matchup advantages over the Gamecocks. While the Wolverines exhibits considerable advantages is most categories including the overall metric, the ‘Cocks only net advantage is in, of course, Explosiveness.

None of the matchups are very close. Some notables are:

The UM Defense is elite in overall SD S&P+, SD Success Rate and SD Sack Rate; and is top ten in SD Line Yards per Carry.

The UM Offense is bottom ten in SD Sack Rate, but fortunately, the USC Defense is sufficiently below average that it will make the UM Offense look better than usual in things like play-action.

Passing Down Matchups

Last, but certainly not least, are the Passing Down matchups, in which Michigan achieves a clean sweep of a category. One thing to keep in mind is that Passing Down metrics are not measures of passing efficacy per se. These metrics are situational, in that they reflect performance in down-and-distance situations that are usually, but not necessarily, approached using passing plays. Clearly, the PD LYPC metric implies a rushing play on a passing down – and this is where UM has often excelled in the past - whereas PD Sack Rate would imply a drop back of some sort (a passing play or play action).

Anyway, the biggest advantage in this group for Michigan is actually in the overall PD S&P+ category, and even manages to show and advantage in the Explosiveness (IsoPPP) metric. UM still looks to be vulnerable in regard to its shaky pass-protection, as the USC Defense is above average in generating sacks on passing downs. However, the UM Defense will make matters far worse for the USC Offense.

Some other notables are:

The UM Defense is elite in the overall PD S&P+, PD Success Rate and PD Sack Rate metrics, which as has been the case all season, is the key to UM’s matchup advantages in this category.

The Cackalacky Offense is bottom ten in PD Explosiveness. The below average UM Defense will make them look better.

The UM Offense is top twenty in PD Explosiveness; however, the Cackalacky Defense is top ten, which brings the UM Offense down to below average.

Conclusion

If nothing else, this is a pleasant return to seeing a set of matchup charts that arepredominantly and overwhelmingly maize-and-blue-colored. It would appear that UM has not only managed to sneak into a New Year’s Day bowl game, but also pulled a patsy as an opponent. The outlook is good for closing this rebuilding season on a high note!

Of course, the big question mark still is regarding the Quarterback position. Is Brandon Peters completely recovered from the hammering that took him out over a month ago against Wisconsin? Will he have any confidence in his OL to allow him stand in the pocket and deliver, or will he be hearing footsteps that threaten his rhythm and patience in finding open receivers? If Peters can get off to a good start and manage to put up a couple of scores, that may be all this team needs to put this game away, as it does not appear that Cackalacky poses a significant threat to UM Defense to turn this game into any sort of shootout.

If Michigan manages to puts up 35 (or more) points in the game, then it’s going to be game on for the 2018 season.

And so, that concludes this, this final installment of the Five Factors Matchup Analysis.

As a follow up to my earlier thread here, I performed a deeper dive on offensive holding. In the initial thread, I found that in 2014-2017, Michigan's defense had only drawn 10 offensive holding calls, significantly less than all other B1G teams.

TL;DR: Defensive line performance is a poor predictor of offensive holding calls, but Michigan and Alabama both draw holding at a much lower clip than other NCAA teams.

About the Data

I downloaded the 2010 – 2017 Play by Play data from the ESPN API. This contained 1,234,271 plays, during which, 82,570 penalties were called. Additionally, I correlated this data with Football Outsiders’ Offensive Line and Defensive Line statistics, found here.

Each of the 1.2M plays has a “free text” field which describes the play, and if there is one, the penalty and whom it was called on. As an example, this means Michigan could be referred to as Michigan, UM, UofM, Mich, etc. I very carefully developed an algorithm to assign the penalty called, and who it was called on and drawn by, based on this field for all NCAA games involving an FBS team. While I’m sure it wasn’t 100% accurate, I do think I did a pretty good job and designed some good tests to check this process. Probably 99%+ accurate.

Are there any good predictors of Offensive Holding being called?

Honestly, none that I could find. I found evidence that holding calls are generally random…with a slight edge given to the underdog team or team currently losing. This means the argument “Michigan’s D-Line has been amongst the best in the country, we should be getting more holding calls than everyone else” probably lacks merit based on the data.

Comparing Football Outsiders Offensive and Defensive Line metrics (and score differential at the time of the holding call) to holdings drawn. All three lines are downward sloping – suggesting a slight edge is given to the underdog. However, the r-squared value is low; you can see visually it is generally quite random.

Michigan – we’re getting screwed, right?

I’m going to go with a yes. As it turns out, Michigan and Alabama are in a special kind of unlucky streak, stretching for many years. The below is a graph of all FBS teams 2012- present (B1G teams are represented by their logos) for all games played. Michigan is towards the top right – in the “we’re getting screwed” category. The only team that has fared worse is Alabama. A lot worse. Since 2012, Alabama has drawn a holding once every 260 plays. That is nearly 2.5 times the average.

If you zoom in on the B1G for in-conference games over the same timeframe, you see Michigan has drawn half as many holding calls as their peers.

Why limit the analysis to conference games?

Because if there is a bias within the conference, it wouldn’t perpetuate itself in nonconference games. Let’s take a look at holdings drawn in conference vs. out of conference games in the B1G, 2012-2017:

The red teams (Illinois, Michigan, and Nebraska) each have holdings drawn much more frequently in the nonconference schedule vs. B1G play. In reality, this chart likely has as much to do with scheduling choices than anything else. But you see Michigan has a very unfavorable variance, while Indiana and Purdue have a very favorable variance for in-conference play.

Alright. Let’s grab the torch and pitchforks. How long has this been going on?

Well, there is a reason why I keep showing 2012-present. Beyond this reflecting 5 full years (plus the partial season currently being played), it also reflects how long Michigan’s misfortunes on drawing offensive holding has been going on. The below table shows the rank within the B1G each year on plays per offensive holding. A “1” would represent the team that least frequently drew an offensive holding call in the current year. Michigan finishes in the top (err…bottom) 3 in 5 of the last 6 years. Before that time, Michigan fared much more reasonably.

What else did I find?

Not much else, but not for a lack of effort. I reviewed other attributes of when holding was called: Down and distance, quarter within the game, where the play was on the field, etc. – nothing jumped out. I even looked at other penalties to see if Michigan has had similar misfortune elsewhere…And couldn’t find much evidence behind it. So I’ll leave you with one final visual – the total number of penalties (holding or otherwise) called for each pairing of teams since 2010.

…And penalties called per game…as not every team has played an equal number of times:

Where do we go from here?

I don’t think the Big Ten is actively out to get Michigan. I probably should have led with that. There might be some subconscious bias, however. The way you combat that is by providing visibility behind trends in this data, and increased accountability for referees. Finding a way to better compensate officials - and not have this be their weekend job – is probably a good first step. But another step is to have this information be more readily available.

About umich1

Umich1 is a data scientist in his professional job, and graduate of the University of Michigan. He spends a lot of time on Saturdays yelling at officials from row 67 in the big house.

As the year winds down slowly and we take stock of the progress all of us have made in the past year, I look back on the year that we’ve had on the blog and like to think that we actually grew a little bit as a community.

In January, we experienced some up and down moments with grumbling about John Beilein, but we have some excellent memories of a Big Ten Tournament that had a frightening start for the team as a plane slid off a runway. That team came together and did things that we didn’t think it could just a short time before, and it was a great moment indeed.

As we slid into our off-topic season, we watched people come and go and discuss whatever, but that’s where we seem to show just how expansive and eclectic we are as a community, no matter how much anyone here complains about. I cannot imagine many blogs where there are sustained literary and movie discussion in the Big Ten, not while our rivals are having the gravest trouble moving away from the ASCII boobs phase of the Internet.

We entered football mode in earnest as August came and we speculated and theorized ourselves to death and we loved every moment of it, no matter how far-fetched we thought our ideas on the depth chart and predictions for the season were. Although there was some disappointment throughout the season and with the 8-4 regular season record, we all still believe – if I am not mistaken – that we have the right person in charge of the program. That is one of the most important uniting principles in the community right now.

All that brings us to Christmas and bowl season really, to right now. Some of us are watching terrible bowl games with the promise of more interesting ones later, some of us are travelling to see family, some of us are exactly where we wish to be and possibly not paying attention to any of that. Whatever you are doing, however, you are still here and part of the MGoBlog community. Our obsession, arguably unhealthy but ours all the same, binds us and brings us here to talk about our school, our campus, a city we adopted as a second or third, or in my case, first home since it is more or less where I grew up.

MGoBlog is, in its own way, a gift that brings what I believe to be the most highly engaged Michigan fans together to hash out their differences and embrace their overarching similarities. It is a present that continues to inform and enrich when it is used to its full potential. Many of us, myself included, come here and learn things about our beloved Wolverines that we didn’t know sometimes, and that’s one of the best features. In a weird sense, it is an educational tool, even if sometimes we don’t exactly say the most erudite things or have the most structured discussions.

No matter how much I bitch about you people, I do want you to know that I am – mo matter how stupid or strange this will sound - very proud to be a moderator on one of the most influential blogs in the world of Michigan if not in the Big Ten. It actually means something to me to be able to give back, in a weird way, to something which supports the causes of my alma mater. I know that I don’t have the best relationship with everyone on this blog, and that I definitely don’t see eye to eye with everyone, but rest assured I don’t take it personally and your points will return eventually, assuming I remember to return them.

When you reconnect with family and friends over the holiday, remember that some of us are here and probably bored and would not mind a drinking buddy as we get our holiday allotment of hoops and football and movies depicting functional families that are decidedly not our own.